Berg 2002 Recovering Abdominal Contents Skeleton

7/28/2019 Berg 2002 Recovering Abdominal Contents Skeleton

1/17

Journal of Archaeological Science (2002) 29, 13491365doi:10.1006/jasc.2001.0796, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Last Meals: Recovering Abdominal Contents FromSkeletonized Remains

Gregory E. Berg

310 Worchester Avenue, Hickam AFB, HI 96853-5530, U.S.A.

(Received 12 September 2001, revised manuscript accepted 15 November 2001)

Excavation and analysis of human remains is becoming a polarized field in anthropology; it is therefore necessary toconsider alternate avenues of data collection from these features to maximize their potential. The analysis of abdominalsoils for digestive tract contents is consistently overlooked in research designs. Two previous studies have attempted torecover abdominal contents through systematic sampling methods using multiple inhumations and two others haverecovered colon contents in isolated instances. This research briefly familiarizes the reader with current state of

investigation, and then proposes and tests a different method to recover abdominal contents in skeletonizedinhumations. Using this method, more than 70% of the sampled inhumations yielded data on ingested botanicalproducts. Though recovered, faunal remains were rare. The implications of recovery, some interpretations for eachpopulation, and avenues of future research are considered. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: PALAEODIET, PALAEOETHNOBOTANY, ABDOMINAL CONTENTS, PALYNOLOGY.

Introduction and Background

Physical anthropologists and bioarchaeologistsneed to develop new methods for extractinginformation from burial contexts (Reinhard

& Hevly, 1991). One such methodthe analysis ofabdominal cavity sediments from skeletonizedburialshas been overlooked. Sampling techniquesto recover stomach and intestinal contents are notadequately developed or tested, though several initialstudies have been conducted (Reinhard, 1986;Reinhard et al., 1992; Tuross et al., 1994). This paperdescribes the development and testing of a systematicstrategy for sampling the abdominal cavity of skel-etonized inhumations after reviewing the current stateof published research. Two skeletal series were used, amedieval Danish population ( 1100 to 1250) and aClassic Period Salado series from central Arizona( 1250 to 1350). The sediments from the abdominal

cavities were examined using a tripartite combinationof palynological, macrobotanical, and faunal analyses.

Reinhard (1986) first attempted sampling of theabdominal region using two prehistoric Hohokamburials from the Grand Canal site, Arizona. Sedimentsamples from the sacral region of each skeleton andcontrol samples from the burial fill were analysed. Nomacrobotanical remains were recovered, though pollenmicrofossils were abundant. Because the sacral pollenspectrum was similar to the controls, he was unable todemonstrate the presence of abdominal contents.

The Windover site, Florida, was located in asmall pond and contained more than 160 Holocene

inhumations (Doran & Dickel, 1988; Tuross et al.,1994). The bodies originally were placed in a peatmatrix, which the researchers extensively sampledto determine its palynological and macrobotanicalconstituents. Sediment samples were extracted frommultiple burials, apparently from the abdominal area,potentially near the sacrum. Archaeobotanical datafrom flotation/sediment samples from six burials werereported. Five did not yield evidence of abdominalcontents but the sixth contained the remnants ofingested foods (Tuross et al., 1994: 287289). Anotherburial containing a suspected coprolite was subjectedto palynological analysis. Even though the pollen as-semblage was identical to the control sample, thepossible faecal samples pollen concentration was halfthat of the control, potentially arguing for a humanorigin (Holloway, in press).

During fieldwork on a Kayenta Anasazi site( 12501300), Reinhard et al . (1992) sampled a

burial for colon contents. Samples were collected fromthe anterior portion of the pelvic girdle near the pubicsymphysis and from the centre of the pelvic girdle.Other samples were taken from the pit base and theassociated room floor. Laboratory examination of theskeleton revealed insect frass and seeds adhering insidethe sacral foramina. Comparisons between the sacraland control samples conclusively showed that themacrobotanical and palynological ecofacts originatedfrom the digestive tract, whereas the pelvic samplesdid not.

The authors proposed a sampling strategy focusingon the collection of a vertical sediment column from

134903054403/02/$-see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.


2/17

the pelvic cavity and a control sample adjacent to thepelvic girdle (Reinhard et al., 1992: 702703). Thevertical column would be collected in three sections:the upper two sections (controls) beginning at the levelof the pelvis, and the lowest sample from the sacralsurface and foramina. Control samples from the burialpit should also be collected. A test of this method hasyet to be published.

Strategy and Sample

Since the preceding investigators used different sam-pling methods, the efficacy of any one strategy has yetto be determined, and none of the results are directly

comparable. The proposed strategy reflects certainassumptions of archaeological deposits, decomposedhuman remains, and the nature of the human digestivetract.

If, at the time of death, the digestive tract contentswere not expelled from the body, the possibility fortheir recovery exists. Furthermore, even if the coloncontents were expelled, pollen grains are trapped in theintestinal folds (Sobolik, 1988: 207; Williams-Dean,1978), thereby increasing their chances for recoveryfrom the decay and liquidation of these organs. It ishypothesized that in extended supine burials, the pelvicbasin and sacrum act as a natural bowl, collecting the

abdominal contents (Reinhard et al., 1992: 703). De-pending on the angle of the body, some materials maybe outside this bowl, coming to rest next to the lowerlumbar vertebra (Berg, 1997).

These assumptions predict that abdominal contentscan be located within the pelvic girdle and adjacent toit. Sediments associated with the sacrum and pelvicgirdle must be sampled. Since the digestive tract couldhave settled anatomically higher, the sediments slightlyoutside the girdle should also be included. Controlsamples from the burial pit sediments must be ana-lysed. All samples should be collected in the field toprevent modern contamination and degradation; also,the sacrum tends to fracture upon extraction, which

would mix the sampling locations.For this study, four samples (three pollen and one

flotation) were initially obtained from each burial.Sampling localities are listed in opposite stratigraphicorder from their appearance in the field. One pollensample was collected directly from the anterior sacralsurface and within the foramina12 cm of matrixabove the sacrum (sacral sample). A second pollensample was collected from the pelvic girdle fill in directcontact with one of the iliac blades (pelvic sample). Theremainder of the sediment from the pelvis up to thethird lumbar vertebra was collected as a flotationsample. The final pollen sample (control sample) was

Bone contactcontrol pollensample #1

Pit edge

Pelvic flotation sample #1

Sacral pollensample #3

Pelvic pollensample #4

Burial fill pollensample #2 (control)and flotation sample #2

Key

Pollen sample #1: Control sample collected from the sediment in

direct contact with bone, either the arms or legs (30 cc.).

Pollen sample #2: Control sample collected from burial fill (30 cc.).

Pollen sample #3: Sacral sample collected from sediments in direct

contact with the sacrum (+ 12 cm above) and from within the sacral

foramina.

Pollen sample #4: Pelvic sample collected from in direct contact with

an iliac blade.

Flotation sample #1: Pelvic sample collected as the sediments in the

pelvic girdle, up to the 3rd lumbar vertebrae.

Flotation sample #2: Control sample collected from burial fill (2 litres).

Figure 1. Sampling strategy for a typical extended supine inhumation.

1350 G. E. Berg


3/17

collected from general burial fill. After several burialswere sampled and analysed (Berg, 1997), the strategywas modified. A fourth pollen sample (control) wascollected from in direct contact with either the arms orlegs of each individual (Figure 1).

Two burial populations (17 inhumations) from dif-ferent ecozones were selected for study. A contractarchaeological firm excavating in south centralArizona recovered a large burial population. Fiveburials were chosen from three of the Salado hamlets(AZ:U:3:5, U:3:297, and U:3:289 [ASM]) that werelocated in the upper Tonto Basin, within the UpperSonoran biotic community (Clark & Vint, 1998; Vintet al., 1994). The individuals were inhumed in compactsilty-clays with gravel and calcium carbonate inclu-sions. The inhumations followed a typical burialprogramme: extended supine, often with grave accom-

paniments and several were covered with woodencribbing (Dufoe-Minturn, in press).

The second burial population originated from acemetery excavation project conducted at site FHM3970 Viby Tommerhandel, in Nordby, Denmark. Thedepositional matrix was loose sand with shell, lime-stone, and gravel inclusions. Burial modes were rela-tively simple and the deceased were inhumed extendedsupine, sometimes with the hands over the pelvis.Several were afforded simple coffins while others hadrocks supporting wooden planking over the body(Hans Skov, 1998, personal communication). Twelveintact burials were selected for analysis.

Table 1. Sample proveniences and volumes processed*

Burialletter andsamplenumber

Field burial andsample numbers Sample type

Volumein CC

Arizona sites, AZ:U:3:5, U:3:297, and U:3:298A-1 Feature 87#1 Pollen 30A-3 Feature 87#3 Pollen 30A-4 Feature 87#4 Pollen 30A-P Feature 87 Flotation-P 450A-S Feature 87 Flotation-S 118B-1 Feature 84#1 Pollen 30B-3 Feature 84#3 Pollen 30B-4 Feature 84#4 Pollen 30B-P Feature 84 Flotation-P 630B-S Feature 84 Flotation-S 265C-1 Feature 26#1 Pollen 30C-3 Feature 26#3 Pollen 30C-4 Feature 26#4 Pollen 30C-P Feature 26 Flotation-P 550C-S Feature 26 Flotation-S 151D-1 Feature 150#1 Pollen 30D-1b Feature 150#1b Pollen 30D-2 Feature 150#2 Pollen 30D-3 Feature 150#3 Pollen 30D-4 Feature 150#4 Pollen 30D-P Feature 150 Flotation-P 605D-S Feature 150 Flotation-S 95E-3 Feature 114#3 Pollen 30E-4 Feature 114#4 Pollen 30E-P Feature 114 Flotation-P 680

Danish site, FHM 3970F-1 EK#1 Pollen 30F-2 EK#2 Pollen 30F-3 EK#3 Pollen 15F-4 EK#4 Pollen 30

F-P EK Flotation-P 1100G-1 DG#1 Pollen 30G-2 DG#2 Pollen 30G-3 DG#3 Pollen 3G-4 DG#4 Pollen 30G-P DG Flotation-P 650H-1 EQ#1 Pollen 30H-2 EQ#2 Pollen 30H-3 EQ#3 Pollen 16H-4 EQ#4 Pollen 30H-P EQ Flotation-P 800I-1 EM#1 Pollen 30I-2 EM#2 Pollen 30I-3 EM#3 Pollen 10I-4 EM#4 Pollen 30I-P EM Flotation-P 950J-1 EZ#1 Pollen 30J-2 EZ#2 Pollen 30J-3 EZ#3 Pollen 30J-4 EZ#4 Pollen 30J-P EZ Flotation-P 150K-1 ES#1 Pollen 30K-2 ES#2 Pollen 30K-3 ES#3 Pollen 17K-4 ES#4 Pollen 30K-P ES Flotation-P 500L-1 DA#1 Pollen 30L-2 DA#2 Pollen 30L-3a DA#3a Pollen 28L-3b DA#3b Pollen 21L-P DA Flotation-P 675

Burialletter andsamplenumber

Field burial andsample numbers Sample type

Volumein CC

M-1 EX#1 Pollen 30M-2 EX#2 Pollen 30M-3 EX#3 Pollen 15M-P EX Flotation-P 150N-1 FE#1 Pollen 30N-2 FE#2 Pollen 30N-3 FE#3 Pollen 16N-4 FE#4 Pollen 30N-P FE Flotation-P 750O-1 FF#1 Pollen 30O-2 FF#2 Pollen 30O-3 FF#3 Pollen 2O-P FF Flotation-P 100P-1 DR#1 Pollen 30P-2 DR#2 Pollen 30P-3 DR#3 Pollen 3P-4 DR#4 Pollen 30P-P DR Flotation-P 650Q-P EW Flotation-P 725

*Burials were supplied analysis letters for ease of referal in the text.Pollen sample types are as follows: #1 and #2 are control samples,#3 is the sacral sample, and #4 is the pelvic sample.Abbreviations: Pelvic (P), Sacral (S).

Last Meals: Recovering Abdominal Contents from Skeletons 1351


4/17

Sixty-one pollen and 22 flotation samples were col-lected and analysed. Table 1 lists the relevant proven-ience information. The Arizona burials were sampledin accordance with the initial sampling program, andall Danish inhumations had the additional pollen

control sample collected.

Extraction, Identification, and AnalyticalProtocols for the Palynological Remains

Extraction and analysis methods are critical to under-standing the methodology employed in every study.The following details the criteria, judgements, andmethods used in this analysis. The pollen samples wereextracted and analysed in the Palynology Laboratoryof the Anthropology Department at ASU by theauthor. All extraction procedures were conducted un-der a fume hood with pollen-free equipment to avoid

modern contaminants. The laboratory uses the follow-ing heavy-liquid separation extraction procedure torecover fossil pollen (after Schoenwetter, 1996).

Thirty cm3 of sediment was taken from each sample.If less than 30 cm3 was available, the entire sample wasused, and its volume was measured to the nearest cm3.Two Lycopodium tracer tablets (13,500 each) wereadded to the sample to allow pollen concentrationcalculations. Dilute hydrochloric acid was used todissolve the calcium carbonates, and distilled waterwas added to bring the volume to 150 ml. The samplewas then passed through an 80-micron mesh screenusing a swirl separation technique (a strong vortex iscreated with a stirring rod; the mixture is allowed torest for three to five seconds, then it is passed throughthe screen; the volume is returned to 150 ml withdistilled water, and this processes is repeated betweenone and four times) that removed the unwanted heavyfraction (sands, gravels etc.). Reagent grade hydrofluo-ric acid was added to reduce the remaining inorganicmatrix. The solution sat overnight, was then rinsedwith distilled water, and the procedure was repeated.After the inorganic fraction was removed, the pollenif-erous extract was subjected to a heavy liquid separ-ation. A zinc bromide solution with a specific gravityof 20 was added to the extract, isolating the pollenfrom any remaining heavy particles. The organic frac-

tion of each sample was further reduced using concen-trated HCl and a 10% solution of NaOH in boilingwater baths. The remaining material was transferred toone-dram vials and stored in glycerin. During slidepreparation, extracts were stained with basic fucsin tofacilitate pollen identification.

Large flotation samples were processed using thebucket method, yielding a heavy fraction (sands,gravels, and dense organic materials) and a light frac-tion (buoyant organics). Small sample volumes werewet screened through graduated sieves. Each fractionwas analysed under a stereomicroscope with a magni-fication range of 18 to 100 . Identifications were

made by Lisa Huckell, M.A., Research Affiliate to theMaxwell Museum.

Surface sculpture and aperture patterns on thepollen grains were identified using a Ziess microscopewith a magnification range of 100 to 630 . Grains

that were diffi

cult to distinguish were identified usingoil microscopy (1000). The comparative pollen col-lection at ASU, as well as keys with illustrations suchas Faegri et al. (1989), Kapp (1969), and Moore et al.(1991) aided in taxonomic identification. Dr JamesSchoenwetter was consulted on several identifications.

When possible, pollen grains were identified to genusand species; otherwise they were grouped by family (seeTable 2 for common and scientific names). Un-known grains were included in the pollen sum. Pollenaggregates were counted as single occurrences, and theestimated number of grains was recorded separately.Asteraceae pollen was assigned to the high spine cat-egory if observed surface spines were greater than two

microns (m) in length (Bryant, 1975; Kapp, 1969). Abenchmark of 200 grains per sample was counted,which is considered statistically valid and normallyobtains 95% of the taxonomic variety present ineach sample (Barkley, 1934) (Tables 3 and 4). Pollenpreservation was tracked by recording the number ofbroken, crumpled, and corroded/eroded grains persample.

Grass (Poacea) pollen is difficult to identify tospecies; however, size has been used to differentiatecertain species (Kapp, 1969: 7475; Moore et al., 1991:100). All grains less than 40 m in size were labelledPoaceae and categorized as natural grasses. Grainswith diameters between 40 and 60 m were placed inthe Cerealia category without further specification.Grains larger than 60 m were identified as Zea mays.Many grass grains in the Danish series ranged between35 and 39 m; therefore, elevated levels of Poaceaemay be due to this conservative approach, resulting inan under-representation of Cerealia.

The Danish series was characterized by low pollenconcentrations (avg. 400 grains/cm3) and lengthycount times (6+h). These concentration values werenot surprising given the sandy depositional environ-ment. Low concentration values can be symptomatic ofdifferential pollen preservation, which, for this study,would indicate that the data did not represent the

abdominal contents at the time of death, rather itwould represent a diluted or inaccurate representationthereof. Sobolik (1988: 206) considered faecal samplesthat could not reach a 200-grain count and had lessthan 1000 grains/cc3 concentration as statisticallyinvalid. Bryant & Hall (1993: 283) stated that a lowconcentration value (less than 2500 grains/cc3), inconjunction with poor taxonomic representation andhigh percentages of indeterminable grains, producedsuspect data (for non-faecal samples from archaeo-logical sites). The last two factors are indicators ofdifferential pollen preservation. Here, demonstrabledifferential preservation of one or more pollen types,

1352 G. E. Berg


5/17

Table 2. Listing of the scientifc and common names of the recovered pollen types, and usage, as applied to this analysis

Scientific name Common name Dietary Medicinal References*

Abies FirPinus Pine x? Castetter and Bell, 1951; Polunin, 1969

Picea SprucePinus Edulis Pinyon Pine x? Castetter and Bell, 1951; Cummings, 1994Tsuga HemlockJuniperus JuniperQuercus OakSalix Willow x Castetter and Bell, 1951; Moerman, 1986; Polunin, 1969;

Reinhard et al., 1991; Shafer et al., 1989Alnus AlderFrangula alnus BuckthornUlmus ElmTilia BasswoodPopulus Aspen/CottonwoodIlex HollyJuglans Walnut x x? Bisset, 1994; Polunin, 1969Fraxinus AshBetula Birch x? Polunin, 1969

CorylusHazel x? Polunin, 1969

Carya HickoryProsopis Mesquite x Castetter and Opler, 1936; Castetter and Bell, 1951Cercidium PaloverdeCheno-Am Goosefoot, Amaranth, Pigweed x x Castetter, 1935; Castetter and Bell, 1951; Reinhard et al.,

1985; Reinhard, 1990Euphorbia SpurgeRumex Dock/SorrelFouquieria OcotilloLarrea Creosote x Holloway, 1983; Kearney and Peebles, 1960; Reinhard et al.,

1991; Sobolik and Gerick, 1992Ephedra Ephedra, Mormon Tea x Cummings, 1994; Holloway, 1983; Moerman, 1986; Moore,

1979; Niethammer, 1974Artemisia Desert SageLeguminosae Type Pea Family x Polunin, 1969Liguliflorae Dandelion-typeHigh Spine Asteraceae Sunflowers, Aster x Castetter and Opler, 1936; Castetter and Bell, 1951; Polunin,

1969; Reinhard et al., 1988Low Spine Asteraceae BursagePoaceae Grasses x Polunin, 1969; Holloway, 1983; Sobolik, 1994Urtica Nettle x? Bisset, 1994; Kenner and Requena, 1996Trifolium CloverCalluna HeatherCerealia Barely, Wheat, Rye x Polunin, 1969Brassicaceae Mustards, Brocolli x Polunin, 1969; Shafer et al., 1989; Sobolik, 1994Umbeliferae Parsley/Carrot Family x Bryant, 1975; Cummings, 1994; Polunin, 1969Ribes Currant x Cummings, 1994; Polunin, 1969Cylindropuntia Cholla x Castetter and Bell, 1951, 1942; Kearney and Peebles, 1960Gossypium Cotton x Castetter and Bell, 1951; Minnis 1989Phaseolus Beans x Castetter and Bell, 1951; Cummings, 1994; Polunin, 1969Zea mays Corn x Castetter and Bell, 1951; Cummings, 1994; Reinhard et al.,

1988Cucurbita Squash, Pumpkin x Castetter and Bell, 1951; Cummings, 1994; Reinhard et al.,

1988Agave Century Plant, Agave x Bryant, 1975; Castetter and Bell, 1951; Sobolik, 1994Hypernicum St. Johns Wort x Polunin, 1969; Kenner and Requena, 1996Acorus Sweet Flag x Polunin, 1969; Bisset, 1994Prunella Selfheal/Healall x Polunin, 1969Typha Cattail x x Castetter and Bell, 1951; Cummings, 1994; Fry and Hall,

1986Potamogeton Pondweed x x Kearney and Peebles, 1960Tidestromia Tidestromia x Kearney and Peebles, 1960; Smith, 1995

*Not an exhaustive listing.



6/17

Table3.PollencountdatafromtheArizonaburialpopulation*

Taxon

A-1

(control)

A-3

(sacral)

A-4

(pelvic)

B-1

(control)

B-3

(sa

cral)

B-4

(pelvic)

C-1

(control)

C-3

(sacral)

C-4

(pelvic)

D-1

(control)

D-1b

(control)

D-3

(sacral)

D-4

(pelvic)

Background

Abies

1

4

2

2

Picea

2

2

1

PinusEdulis

1

1

4

1

Juniperus

1

1

2

1

7

Quercus

23

25

15

16

4

10

10

1

2

12

8

4

20

Prosopis

6

4

7

5

3

8

2

2

4

1

4

3

1

Cercidium

1

2

3

2

2

2

1

Artemisia

7

2

3

8

1

Water/Medicine

Salix

2

3

4

5

6

1

1

13

15

2

8

Fouquieria

8

3

4

11

7

Larrea

1

5

2

2

5

2

1

7

Ephedra

3

2

Typha

1

2

1

Potamogeton

3

4

Tidestromia

2

1

1

10

Dietary

Cylindropuntia

10

2

2

Gossypium

2

Phaseolus

6

Zeamays

4

3

1

7

1

4

Cucurbita

1

Agave

1

1

Excluded

Cheno/Am

110

118

104

49

51

112

128

91

114

61

59

60

63

LowSpineAsteraceae

25

13

33

28

43

32

13

21

30

27

39

14

18

HighSpineAsteraceae

18

13

18

41

53

14

22

19

22

36

30

63

39

Poaceae

10

9

18

41

32

10

12

29

11

17

25

13

26

(Minutepresence)

8

16

5

1

6

3

16

4

3

6

TotalPollen:

205

202

204

203

201

200

202

204

200

201

202

202

199

Concentration(gr/CC):

61,500

11,475

20,200

30,450

15

,000

12,921

60,600

25,714

22,950

180,900

4248

1171

3788

*Burialandsampledesignations(1and

2arecontrols,3issacral,4ispelvic).

Containspollenaggregates.

1354 G. E. Berg


7/17

Table4.PollencountdatafromtheDenm

arkburialpopulation*

Taxon

F-1

(control)

F-3

(sacral)

F-4

(pelvic)

G-2

(control)

G-4

(pelvic)

H-2

(control)

H-3

(sacral)

I-2

(co

ntrol)

I-3

(sacral)

I-4

(pelvic)

J-1

(control)

J-3

(sacral)

J-4(pelv

ic)

K-2

(control)

K-3

(sacral)

K-4

(pelvic)

L-2

(control)

L-3

(sacral)

L-4

(pelvic)

M-1

(control)

M-3

(sacral)

Background

Abies

1

Pinus

3

1

3

27

4

4

2

1

1

4

2

2

5

1

3

6

3

2

1

Tsunga

1

1

Juniperus

11

3

3

3

6

5

3

3

3

4

4

9

6

4

1

3

1

Quercus

6

2

6

8

3

2

3

9

4

6

5

9

3

1

8

3

6

3

6

4

Salix

2

1

1

4

3

1

3

1

2

Alnus

1

5

4

2

8

2

3

5

4

2

4

1

2

2

2

10

4

2

6

Frangulaalnus

2

1

Ulmus

1

1

1

6

1

3

1

2

1

Tilia

1

5

2

6

4

2

9

1

3

3

1

1

Populus

6

9

5

1

3

2

1

3

3

5

5

4

1

5

7

1

IlexFraxinus

2

1

Carya

1

1

Cheno-Am

6

2

4

6

7

11

8

1

2

2

5

5

5

1

3

11

3

3

4

3

Euphorbia

3

1

4

4

1

4

2

3

6

3

7

11

1

5

1

4

2

3

Rumex

2

3

6

1

3

2

2

LeguminosaeType

9

2

4

2

1

5

6

1

6

4

4

5

5

2

5

4

5

4

6

5

6

Medicine

Hypernicum

10

1

1

1

Acorus

26

18

1

32

3

17

6

32

19

43

10

15

17

15

Prunella

1

Ephedra

1

1

Dietary

Cerealia

1

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

5

3

Brassicaceae

1

1

3

3

3

Umbeliferae

2

1

1

1

Ribes

2

4

2

3

1

1

2

Excluded

Betula

4

1

1

17

6

2

10

6

2

Corylus

19

36

15

14

19

16

48

13

15

21

20

14

10

21

22

11

4

3

19

10

Liguliflorae

55

34

47

50

12

42

15

39

36

53

52

14

8

97

21

39

64

35

32

52

25

HighSpineAsteraceae

7

18

8

14

17

10

12

9

22

8

8

19

13

3

10

14

8

5

11

13

23

LowSpineAsteraceae

30

17

5

14

13

13

18

11

29

13

9

15

18

8

10

10

4

10

13

14

16

Poaceae

30

41

41

52

66

56

39

29

35

45

45

47

62

28

41

35

33

62

50

41

40

Urtica

3

27

9

11

16

15

18

31

18

11

22

9

1

38

21

13

21

20

39

Trifolium

2

7

4

4

5

9

1

2

1

4

5

4

1

2

Calluna

2

1

7

1

2

2

1

3

(MinutePresence)

7

3

2

5

12

4

7

4

2

2

3

2

3

2

2

1

5

2

TotalPollen:

200

200

200

201

205

201

200

200

201

200

201

201

194

203

200

200

202

200

200

200

200

Concentration(Gr/CC)

415

4580

1139

236

762

297

396

547

613

389

331

439

827

397

589

283

5143

699

3782

698

824

*Burialandsamplenumbers(#1and#2arecontrols,#3issacral,#4ispelvic).

Containspollenaggregates.


8/17

in conjunction with the low concentration values,would render an interpretation of suspect data.

Several lines of evidence were evaluated to determineif the Danish data set was corrupt. Palynologicaldata from two other sites in Denmark were examined

(Andersen, 1990; Odgaard, 1985). Though the siteswere older than FHM 3970, similar taxa were repre-sented in the assemblages. For the ancient sites, taxo-nomic variety ranged between 17 and 26, which wasconsistent with FHM 3970 (mean=22, range=1826).Next, a wide distribution of pollen grains with differentsurface sculpturing patterns, shapes, and pollinationmodes was found in the current series. No single pollentype was obviously discriminated against. Finally,indeterminate pollen grains were tracked and theDanish series exhibited better preservation than theArizona population (see Berg, 1999). This series con-tains intact data since differential pollen preservationcannot be adequately or confidently diagnosed. Also,

the data argues that low concentration values can beindependent of pollen preservation, and an arbitraryconcentration level should not mandate suspect data.

Palynological Analyses

Twelve of the 17 inhumations (four of five Arizona andeight of 12 Danish) were included in the palynologicalanalysis. Five burials, E, N, O, P, and Q and a controlsample from burial D, were eliminated from consider-ation due to an extraction error, bioturbation, and aninitial statistical evaluation of the inhumations (seeBerg, 1999: 1518). Palynological justifications, par-ticularly those derived from coprolite analysis, andcriteria used to determine the presence or absence ofdigestive tract contents follow.

Since the pollen concentration and taxonomic var-iety analyses are presented elsewhere (Berg, 1999), thispaper will concentrate on taxonomic proportions. Todemonstrate that abdominal contents are recovered,statistical or relative frequency differences must exist ineither taxonomic variety, proportions of taxa, or poss-ibly concentration values between the control andabdominal samples (Berg, 1997; Reinhard et al., 1992).Samples from the pelvic girdle, especially the sacrum,should show increased percentages of dietary or med-

icinal plants, or plants found in drinking water. Fur-thermore, they should exhibit lower percentagesof taxa found in background pollen rain. The nullhypothesis states that no differences exist between thesecategories.

For analytic purposes, the pollen records weredivided into four categories: three of taxa included inthe analyses, and the fourth was excluded types. Toeliminate investigator bias, the constituents in eachcategory were selected for an entire population ratherthan per burial. Individual taxa, excluding those foundin minute presence (individual taxa that were foundas single or few occurrences per sample, as well as

unknowns), are listed in Tables 3 and 4 and thejustifications are as follows (see also Table 2):

(1) Background pollen rain. This is composed of ane-mophilous (wind pollinated) plant types that typi-cally travel long distances. Others include trees

and shrubs that are present in low frequencies in avariety of cultural contexts (e.g., middens).

(2) Medicinal/water plants. Pollen from plants thatline waterways can become incorporated intodrinking water, but many of these species alsoexhibit curative properties. They are predomi-nantly zoophilous (insect pollinated) or arehydrophilous (water pollinated). A composite cat-egory of medicinal and water plants was createdfor the Arizona series, of which several arenoted medicinals in ethnographic literature andother studies (Castetter, 1935; Castetter & Bell,1951; Castetter & Opler, 1936; Cummings,

1994; Kearney & Peebles, 1960; Moerman, 1986;Moore, 1979; Niethammer, 1974; Reinhard,1990; Reinhard et al., 1985; Reinhard et al., 1991;Shafer et al., 1989; Smith, 1995). The Danishseries contained only those with listed curativeproperties (Bisset, 1994; Kenner & Requena,1996; Polunin, 1969). Frequently, individual plantuse is not as important as the suite of medicinalplants, per burial. Since Ephedra is not normallyfound in northern European pollen rain, a cul-tural explanation (use as a medicinal) was ac-cepted to most logically explain its presence in theassemblage.

(3) Dietary plants. The plants placed into this cat-

egory are documented food sources (Castetter,1935; Castetter & Bell, 1942; Castetter & Bell,1951; Cummings, 1994; Kearney & Peebles, 1960;Minnis, 1989; Niethammer, 1974; Polunin, 1969;Reinhard et al ., 1988; Smith, 1995; Sobolik,1990; Sobolik, 1994; Williams-Dean, 1986).

(4) Excluded taxa. Taxa were removed from statisti-cal analysis for multiple reasons: many wereabundant pollen producers (anemophilous) and ifincluded in a statistical analysis, would over-whelm or produce erroneous data patterning;several showed possible cultural use, but alsoappeared in quantities indicative of pollen rain;

some taxa were only present in minute quantities.Undoubtedly, several listed taxa are part of thenatural pollen rain but were removed from stat-istical consideration under the first criterion.Those found in minute presence do not signifi-cantly affect the statistical or relative frequencyoutcomes. Though included in this category, sometaxa are discussed in specific instances when thequantity of the pollen was sufficient to positintentional ingestion.

Hypothesis testing was conducted using bothstatistical and relative frequency analyses. Relative fre-quency data (raw count data converted to percentages)

1356 G. E. Berg


9/17

are often used for plants that are known to be econ-omic (dietary) in origin (Cummings, 1994; Faegri et al.,1989; Fish, 1989; Gish, 1982; Schoenwetter and Smith,1986). These plants are usually zoophilous, and pro-duce substantially less pollen per anther (1000 grains/

anther) than anemophilous plants (10,00070,000grains/anther) (Bryant & Holloway, 1983). Their pol-len grains typically are covered in lipids and adhere todeveloping seeds or leaves (Reinhard et al., 1991: 122),becoming introduced into the human digestive tractthrough ingestion of plant parts other than the flowers.Several are anemophilous (i.e., Zea mays), but thepollen grains are extremely large, do not travel farfrom their source, and are rarely seen in backgroundpollen rain (Martin & Sharrock, 1964; Williams-Dean,1986: 198).

Bryant (1975: 9091) demonstrated that for somezoophilous plants (dietary), relative frequency in acoprolite exceeding 2% strongly suggests ingestion. For

frequencies greater than 10%, intentional ingestion wasindicated. Pollen contaminants from drinking water orfrom pollen rain settling out on prepared food in levelsgreater than 2% was highly improbable. Since zoophi-lous plant pollen is rarely found in greater than 4%levels in the natural background pollen rain, Reinhardand co-workers (1991: 122) have accepted this cutoff incoprolites as indicative of intentional consumption.

It is necessary to consider that lower frequencies ofinsect pollinated types may indicate intentional inges-tion, especially in skeletonized remains, since the de-composition and dilution of the digestive tract contentswith burial fill may reduce their frequencies. Therefore,if a zoophilous or dietary type was not found in thecontrol samples but was present in the abdominalsamples, it might have been intentionally ingested. Tobe conservative, a 2% threshold was accepted as highlysuggestive and a frequency of 5% was accepted forintentional ingestion. Further, if the taxon was presentin control samples, its presence in the abdominalsample must be elevated by 50% to be consideredingested.

High frequencies of anemophilous plants in copro-lites may not represent ingested plants (Bryant, 1975;Sobolik, 1988), rather they may be introduced fromrespiration, and contaminated food or water supplies.Determining the dietary use of an anemophilous taxon

depends upon its relationship to other members of thesampling universe. Dietary use of an anemophilousplant with a relative frequency as low as 2030% abovebackground levels in a coprolite has been proposed(Shafer et al., 1989: 2223; Sobolik & Gerick, 1992:208209) and Bryant (1975: 95) has accepted a 15%elevation.

As with the zoophilous plants, lower frequenciesmay indicate ingestion; anemophilous pollen types (ofknown dietary or medicinal use) elevated 75% abovethe control samples and in relative frequencies greaterthan 5% were conservatively considered intentionallyingested. This standard shows an increase over the

natural background pollen rain than is most easilyexplained through human agency rather than an aber-ration in pollen rain depositional rates of one pollentype in a limited space.

Statistical analysis of taxonomic proportions of the

defined categories and examination of the relativefrequency distributions of select taxa were undertakenfor each population. Statistical analyses of pollen dataused Chi-square tests to detect differences between thesamples. Monte Carlo estimates of the Chi-squareprobabilities were employed to determine if significantresults were due to small expected values (Table 5).

Results

Palynological evidence of digestive tract contents wasrecovered in 12 of 17 cases. In each instance, either astatistically significant difference between the sampleswas detected, or relative frequencies of selected taxamet the above requirements to posit intentional inges-tion. Each burial is detailed below, starting with theArizona series.

Burial A (Arizona)

The abdominal samples from this burial exhibited amarked decrease in pollen rain and strong increasesin both the water/medicinal and dietary categories.Statistical comparisons showed significant differencesamong all three samples (P


10/17

differences were highly significant (P=0001). The pel-vic and sacral samples were statistically different fromeach other (P=0013). Zea mays and Cylindropuntiawere found in the sacral and pelvic samples, respect-ively. The relative frequency of Cheno-Am was el-evated in the pelvic sample. It constituted 56% of thepelvic sample, compared to 24% of the control. Theincrease met the minimum requirement for a wind-pollinated species to be interpreted as digestive tract

contents. The pelvic sample recovered the bulk of theabdominal contents of this inhumation. Before death,meals containing Cylindropuntia, Cheno-Am, and Zeamays were ingested.

Burial D (Arizona)

Two control samples were analysed from the burial fillof this inhumation. Chi-square comparisons show stat-istical similarity between the control and pelvicsamples, but the sacral sample was significantly differ-ent (Pc0001). Tidestromia, Larrea, Potamogeton, andZea mays were the primary components of the statisti-

cal difference. A member of the zoophilous plantfamily High Spine Asteraceae was also intentionallyingested prior to death. It constituted over 31% of thesacral pollen, and was elevated 60% over the controlsamples.

Burial F (Denmark)

This inhumation showed a highly significant difference

between the control and abdominal samples(Pc0001). Acorus, in both the pelvic and sacralsamples, was the prime contributing taxa. The sacralsample separated from the pelvic sample by an increasein dietary plants and a drop in the background pollenrain (P=0001). The relative frequencies ofCorylus andHigh Spine Asteraceae in the sacral sample demon-strated ingestion. This individual consumed plantsfrom the Brassicaceae, Umbeliferae, Ribes, Cerealia,and High Spine Asteraceae families, but the strongestsignatures were from Acorus, a medicinal, and Corylus,which may have been ingested as food item (cf.Polunin, 1969).

Table 5. Statistical comparisons between control and digestive tract pollen samples

Burial Comparison*Chi-square

valueChi-squareprobability

Degrees offreedom

Monte Carloestimate at1000 trials

Arizona burial populationA C vs. P & S 1267 0013 4 0006A C vs. P 563 006 2 057A C vs. S 942 0009 2 0005A S vs. P 215 0342 2 0343B C vs. P & S 1898 0001 4


11/17

Burial G (Denmark)

Statistical analysis revealed a significant differencebetween the control and pelvic samples, primarily aproduct of medicinal taxa and, less so, a decrease inbackground pollen rain. The medicinal plant Hyperi-

cum, totalling 5% of the pelvic sample, created thedifference. Pinus pollen was unusually elevated in thepelvic sample, at 13%, which was the highest percent-age found in the Danish assemblage. The Pinus pollensatisfied the requirements for intentional ingestion.Three other pollen types bear noting: Juglans and Ilexwere present in small quantities (less than 4%), but theydid not occur in the remainder of the Danish popu-lation, nor were they present in the control sample.Calluna constituted 4% of the pelvic pollen recovered.These taxa did not reach the 5% threshold and are notdefinitively ingested, but are highly suggestive of such(see Discussion below).

Burials H, I, J, and M (Denmark)

These inhumations were remarkably similar, with eachhaving significant differences between the abdominaland control samples (Table 5). In burial I, the pelvicand control samples were statistically similar, and werestatistically different from the sacral sample. In burialJ, both the pelvic and sacral samples were similar, butdiffered from the control sample. Both burials H andM had sacral samples statistically different from theirrespective controls. All four burials contained in-creased levels of medicinal plant pollen, and mostcontained some increase in the pollen of dietary taxa.

Medicinal taxa in these inhumations were Acorus,Hypericum, and possibly Ephedra. Dietary taxa in-cluded Ribes, Umbeliferae, Cerealia, and Brassicaceae.

Differences in the relative frequency distribution ofseveral taxa between control and abdominal sampleswere found. Urtica was elevated in burial M above thecontrol sample by 95%, totalling 20% of the pollencount. Folklore remedies recorded the medicinal use ofthis taxon (Bisset, 1994). High Spine Asteraceae fre-quencies were elevated above those in the controlsamples in burials M, I, and J. In each case, they wereelevated by 50% or more and constituted between 7%and 12% of the total pollen.

Burial K (Denmark)

This burial had significant differences between thesacral, pelvic, and control samples. The Chi-squareresults showed that the probability these derive fromthe same population was Pc0001. Acorus drove thedistinctions, as well as a decrease in background pollenrain. Cerealia, Brassicaceae, and Ribes were present inthe abdominal samples and were lacking in the controlsample. The sacral sample had a greater presence ofAcorus compared to the pelvic sample (P=0012). Twoother trends were noted. Based on the criteria pre-sented above, Betula and Corylus were present in the

abdominal samples in quantities indicative of inten-tional consumption, as was Urtica in the pelvic sample.Though unusual, each taxa has some consumption use,including alcoholic beverages distilled from the sap ofBetula, edible nuts from Corylus, and medicines such as

an anti-anaemic or for treating weakness/stomach painare documented from Urtica (Bisset, 1994; Kenner &Requena, 1996; Polunin, 1969). Harvesting or collec-tion techniques may have introduced the pollen fromthe plants into the final products.

Burial L (Denmark)

These samples produced the greatest taxonomic varietyand the highest values for the dietary category in theDanish series. Food taxa were present in 6% of thesacral sample, compared to 3% in the pelvic sampleand none in the control sample. Statistically, the pelvicand sacral samples were similar (P=0294) and were

different from the control sample (P= 75 grains, was also observedin the sacral sample. Brassicaceae was present in boththe pelvic and sacral samples at 2%, and Ribes andUmbeliferae were present in the sacral sample. Therelative frequency of Poaceae and Betula pollen in thesacral sample indicated ingestion. The digestive tract

contents of this individual were diverse, including twomedicinals, Acorus and Prunella, and many dietaryplants.

Macrobotanical Analyses

Where possible, a flotation sample from the pelviccavity of each burial was analysed. In addition, thesacral pollen samples were examined for macrobotani-cal remains. Macrobotanical analysis of the Danishsacral samples could not be undertaken due to ex-tremely low sample volumes. Though the pelvicsamples offered the distinct possibility of recovering

abdominal contents, flotation control samples were notcollected. Lacking control samples, the pelvic sampleswere not assessed for digestive tract contents, exceptfor one Danish burial (see below). Therefore, the pelvicsamples were used as controls for the macrobotanicalremains recovered from the sacral pollen samples.Recovery of intentionally ingested macro-remainsfrom two Arizona burials and one Danish inhumationis reported.

Like pollen samples, macrobotanical remains fromthe abdominal cavity should be different in quantityand type from those recovered in control samples.They should exhibit plants that were used for dietary



12/17

and medicinal reasons, as seen from coprolite studies(Holloway, 1983; Reinhard et al ., 1985; Reinhardet al., 1991; Shafer et al., 1989; Sobolik & Gerick,1992). Other items such as hair, bone, and fibre maybe present, as they are frequently encountered incoprolites (Cummings, 1994; Faulkner, 1991; Minnis,1989; Reinhard & Hevly, 1991; Sutton, 1998). Themacrobotanical remains may correspond to the ob-served pollen spectra from the host burial, althoughsome variation between data sets should be expected

(Reinhard et al., 1992).A generalization about the nature of the macro-

botanical remains should be considered. Plant ma-terials that represent digestive tract contents would beexpected to be uncarbonized, as most remains fromcoprolites are typically not burned. This is contrary towhat is the expected in macrobotanical analyses (car-bonized remains). The ingestion of carbonized remainsis unusual, though coprolites often contain them alongwith charcoal fragments (Fry, 1977; Fry & Hall, 1986;Shafer et al., 1989). Many food preparation techniquescan produce carbonized materials (e.g., parching,roasting, baking).

The macrobotanical results for the sacral and pelvicsamples are expressed in units per litre in order tostandardize between sample volumes (Tables 6 and 7).This is designed to calibrate each sample to the samplepopulation. For example, four occurrences of Zeamays in a sacral sample with a volume of 60 cm3 is adramatic increase in presence compared to a 600 cm3

pelvic sample with four occurrences. Without stand-ardization, the apparent occurrence level betweensamples would be similar, potentially obscuring data

patterning. Granted, a difference stemming from asingle occurrence should be treated with caution, as theoccurrence may easily represent a chance inclusion.

Recovered plant parts were typically seeds and seedcoats; fibres, leaves, and tissue represented Agave whilecupules and glumes predominantly were identified forZea mays. Data evaluation showed pronounced differ-ences between the sacral and control (pelvic) samples.All recovered macrobotanical remains were carbon-ized, except for one seed from burial H and the wholeof burial L.

Burials A and B produced convincing results sugges-tive of digestive tract contents. Four taxa in the sacral

Table 6. Parts-per-litre data for the Arizona control (pelvic) and sacral flotation samples

Taxon(carbonized remains)

Burial A Burial B Burial C Burial D

Control Sacral Control Sacral Control Sacral Control Sacral

Total Zea maysincludes cupules, cf. cupules,and glumes(corn)

30 254 11 189 6 13

Total Agaveincludes tissue, fibers, cf. fibers,and leaves(century plant)

5 424 17 491 6 3 35

cf. Phaseoluscotyledon(bean) 2Echinocereusseed coat(hedgehog cactus) 1 75Gossypiumseed coat(cotton) 2 8 302 105Chenopodiumseed(goosefoot) 2 4Carnegieacallus(sagauro cactus) 3 2Cucurbitarind(squash) 2Mammillariaseed coat(cactus) 2Epidermis 13 264 3 6Total 44 678 54 1321 17 0 26 140

Table 7. Macrobotanical remains (principally seeds) recovered from the Danish pelvic samples

TaxonBurial

F H I J K L M N O P Q

cf. Chenopodium/Atriplexseed(goosefoot, lambs quarters, etc.) 11&4Sambucusseed(elderberry) 1&1Brassicaceaeseed coat(mustard family) 1 3Umbelliferaeseed(carrot family) 1Caryophyllaceaeseed(pink family) 1&1Unidentified nutlet 1Unidentified fruit 1Unidentified seed 1* 1&2Total 0 2 0 0 0 20&8 0 0 0 0 0

*Carbonized.Number following the & is the number of additional identifiable framents of that taxon.

1360 G. E. Berg


13/17

sample from burial B (Zea mays, Agave, Echinocereus,and Gossypium) were represented an average of 28greater (range 1775) than the control sample.The sacral sample from burial A also produced largerquantities of two taxa, Zea mays (8) and Agave

(85

). The macrobotanical and pollen records fromburials A and B overlap in Zea mays; Agave was duallypresent for burial A. The pollen and flotation samplesfor burial B both contained Phaseolus and Gossypium,but it was not possible to determine if these wereingested or from the burial fill. The macrobotanicalsignature from burial D was equivocal. Though quan-tities of Agave and Gossypium were 35 and 105those seen in the control sample, the values were basedon one occurrence. These remains were judged not torepresent abdominal contents.

Nine of 11 pelvic flotation samples (81%) from theDanish series produced no macrobotanical remains(Table 7). Burial H produced one Brassicaceae seed

(uncarbonized), possibly a modern inclusion. Burial Lcontained 23 uncarbonized seeds from five taxa as wellas an unidentified nutlet, fruit, and three unknownseeds. Compared to the other burials, these macro-remains represented a substantial increase in bothquantity and variety. Each taxon was recognized as afood source or medicinal properties (Levey, 1966;Polunin, 1969). Corroborating evidence was found inthe burials pollen record, which contained Brassi-caceae and Umbellifereae. The evidence indicates thatthe flotation sample recovered macro-remains fromthis individuals digestive tract.

As noted, uncarbonized remains from the digestivetract in any population should be expected; the likeli-hood of carbonized materials should increase in popu-lations that prepare foods in less controlled situations,such as pit baking/open fire cooking, and that do notexhibit a cultural disdain for burned food items. Here,carbonized remains were found to be populationspecific; the Arizona series contained carbonizedmaterials, while the Danish series did not. The Danishtechnologic and cultural cooking practices of the timeprobably generated less carbonized materials for eachmeal, since pots, stoves, and ovens, which can producefiner temperature control, were used. An aversion tocarbonized materials may have existed, as with manymodern Western populations. The food preparation

techniques typical in the Arizona population, such asparching, may lend themselves to the production ofcarbonized foods. Coprolite evidence from theAmerican southwest supports the notion that carbon-ized foods were not completely shunned (Fry, 1977;Fry & Hall, 1986). Thus, the observed pattern was notunexpected and may represent the norm.

Faunal Remains

Numerous coprolite and several pelvic sediment studieshave recovered faunal remains (Fry, 1977; Minnis,

1989; Sobolik, 1994; Sutton, 1998; Tuross et al., 1994).Of 20 abdominal samples examined (flotation andpollen), only three Arizona pelvic samples containedfaunal remains, totalling four elements. Burial A con-tained a modern unidentified faunal element, possibly

rodent. Burial B contained two modern elements, aright scapula from either Thomomys or Dipodomys(pocket gopher or kangaroo rat), and a calcaneus fromeither Peromyscus or Perognathbus (mouse or pocketmouse). One element, a Sylvilagus audubonii (desertcottontail) upper premolar, was recovered from burialC. The badly eroded and scarred tooth displayedevidence of passing through the digestive tract.

Even though this study failed to yield sizeable quan-tities of faunal remains, examination of the pelvic andsacral samples is still recommended. First, the possi-bility of recovering faunal remains from the abdominalcavity should not be overlooked. Second, if newerremains are recovered, they should be included in an

evaluation of burial integrity (see Berg, 1999).

Discussion

As illustrated in Berg (1997, 1999), Reinhard (1986),Reinhard et al. (1992), and Shafer et al. (1989), controlsamples are essential for analyses focused on the recov-ery of prehistoric pollen or macrobotanical remainsfrom inhumations. Control samples (two pollen andone flotation) from each burial ensure reliable results.The proposed sampling procedure provides ease ofsample collection while maintaining necessary strictcontrols.

Abdominal contents can consistently be identified insacral samples, and only one sacral pollen samplefailed to yield digestive tract contents. This confirmsthe hypothesis ofReinhard et al. (1992), who proposedthat the most productive area to sample is the sacralforamina and the sediment directly above. Addition-ally, the palynological data demonstrated recovery ofdigestive tract contents from different portions of thepelvic girdle.

Macrobotanical remnants of ingested materials werepresent in only three of 17 inhumations, or 18%; theArizona burials produced the best recovery rate at40%. In future studies, higher returns may come from

sacral pollen samples since those produced the mostmacrobotanical remains per unit volume. The pollensamples should be analysed for macrobotanical re-mains through salvage of discarded sediment from theswirl separation stage and any unused materials. Inboth study populations, the recovered macrobotanicalremains partially matched the pollen records, thougheach also recovered different plants. Faunal remainswere poorly represented with only one recovered toothdisplaying evidence of passing through a digestive tract.

A brief discussion of pollen concentration can beaddressed from the data. Intuitively, pollen concen-tration values should be higher in those samples



14/17

representing the abdominal contents, since coprolitestend to have average pollen concentrations higher thansoil samples, often above 50,000 grains/cm3 (Reinhard& Hevly, 1991; Schoenwetter, 1998; Sobolik, 1988).Coprolites contain pollen from ingested sources that

flood the intestinal tract with massive quantities ofpollen and eventually become concentrated into small,excreted units. If the sacral and pelvic samples are thedecomposed remains of a coprolite or the digestivetract, then, on average, they should have higher con-centration values than the surrounding sediments (con-trol samples). The null hypothesis states the pollenconcentration from control sediment samples would beequal to or greater than abdominal samples.

The Arizona series had a resulting averaged concen-tration of the control samples three times greater thanthe combined abdominal content samples (controlmean=53,664 grains/cm3, abdominal mean=16,007grains/cm3). The opposite trend was present in the

Danish series (control mean= 420 grains/cm3

, abdomi-nal mean= 1,356 grains/cm3). These results are equivo-cal. Seven of 12 burials conform to the expectedpattern, increasing in pollen concentration in the ab-dominal samples. All of the Arizona inhumations andone Danish burial supported the null the hypothesis.The nearly even split along population lines mayindicate population specificity. Additional studies areneeded to validate or refute this hypothesis.

Medicines and evidence of such use are difficult todetermine and reconstruct for past populations. Burialsoils and coprology can shed a brighter light on thisand related issues. In particular, plant species ingestednear the time of death may often have been used fortheir curative properties. The limitation of employingcoprolite studies in this arena is that the typical copro-lite reflects the dietary habits/food groups of healthyindividuals, rarely the ill. Linking medicinal use topopulation data can illuminate social and health issues,or gauge economic status.

The medicinal plant frequencies encountered in theDanish burials are not surprising considering the medi-cal knowledge of the time (research specializing inEnglish history will be used as comparative nearbypopulations). The medieval medical practitioners andpeasantry used a huge pharmacopoeia. Plants were socommonly employed to treat disease that a doctor was

the last resort:

Among the Irish peasantry, there is a more or less ferventbelief in the efficacy of plants to produce curesin somecases to such an extent that until all plants fail, a medicalman will not be called in. (Bonser, 1963: 47)

Comprehensive listings of drugs, potions, and herbalremedies were available to the English physician beforethe 12th century (Kealey, 1981). Most drugs werecompound substances that included animal, mineral,and vegetal ingredients. However, such drugs wereprohibitively expensive to the average individual(Rawcliffe, 1988). A better indication of the remedy

types for the layman can be found in recipes that calledfor plants commonly grown in period herb gardens. Abrew often concocted to ease the pain of wounds andbruises contained a mixture of comfrey, marigold,knapweed, yarrow, wood avens, root of wallwort,

baynwor, clover herb Robert, wild sage, black hare-hound, mouse-ear hawkweed, dock, common pol-ipody, greater celandine, and madder (Rawcliffe,1995). Examining the ancient medicinal recipes mayprovide the researcher a better concept of what maybe expected from pollen remains, as may plantslisted in these concoctions are not typically viewed asmedicinal in nature.

In this study, the most outstanding medicinals wereAcorus, which was present in seven burials, andHypericum, which was found in four. An extract madefrom Acorus was Oil of Calamus, used in perfumeryand medicine (Polunin, 1969), but also known for itstranquillizing effects and as a cure for stomach ail-

ments (Bisset, 1994). Hypericum has been used forcenturies as an antidepressant, and to quickly healwounds and burns (Bisset, 1994; Kenner & Requena,1996; Polunin, 1969). In modern times, both are stillaccepted medicines; Hypericum can be found in mosthealth food stores, sold to treat depression, and Acorusis referenced as a wonder drug in popular literature(Bisset, 1994). The ubiquity of Acorus in this assem-blage might reflect an application as a base ingredientin a compound drug or alternately, perhaps it was amedication given to the dying (i.e., for its tranquillizingeffects). Other medicinals, Ephedra and Prunella, werefound in frequencies below 1%, perhaps indicatingminimal use in the pharmacopoeia.

Burial L was noteworthy in regard to medicinalplant use, containing the highest levels of Hypericum,Pinus, Ilex, and Juglans in the study. Ilex could be usedas a diuretic and a stimulant, Juglans has blood-purifying and anti-fungal agents, as well as producingan edible nut, and Pinus could be used as turpentine oras a source of nuts (Bisset, 1994; Polunin, 1969). Thecombination of these plants can be interpreted severalways: the pollen spectrum represents foods; the spec-trum is explained as an aberration in the pollen rain;the pollen record reflects the ingestion of a compoundsubstance used for medical treatment prior to death.Given their history as medicinal plants, the later

interpretation was accepted for this inhumation.For medicinals in the Arizona series, Larrea was the

most frequent medicinal plant in the assemblage, oftenco-occurring with other species, possibly as compounddrugs. In a tea form, Larrea can treat diarrhoea andbladder ailments (Holloway, 1983; Kearney & Peebles,1960; Reinhard et al., 1991). Kearney & Pebbles (1960)note that the Apache used Fouquieria to reduce painfulswellings and fatigue. Fouquieria and Larrea were bothpresent in high frequencies in burial A and may havebeen used together. As with Fouquieria, Tidestromiais not a well-documented medicinal in the liter-ature (Smith, 1995). In burial D, both Larrea and

1362 G. E. Berg


15/17

Tidestromia were present as well as a member fromthe High Spine Asteraceae family. These, along withPotamogeton, may have been brewed together andingested as a liquid medication.

The successful recovery of digestive tract contents

opens several avenues of exploration. In nine in-humations, statistical variations were detected in thepollen spectra between the abdominal samples (threeinhumations lacked both abdominal samples). Threepatterns were identified. Four burials had control andpelvic samples that were similar, and both were differ-ent from the sacral sample. In this group, the pelvicsamples did not contain abdominal contents. In threeburials, the sacral and pelvic samples were differentfrom each other and the control samples. Here, sacraland pelvic samples apparently recovered mutually ex-clusive portions of the abdominal contents. Unevendecomposition and settling of the digestive tract allowsfor archaeological recovery of different portions or

meals ingested prior to death in different areas of thepelvic basin (see Williams-Dean, 1978, for a discussionon the time intervals between ingestion and expulsionof pollen from the digestive tract). Finally, in twoburials, both the pelvic and sacral samples were similarto each other but were different from the controlsamples. In these burials, there was apparently littledifferentiation in the settling of the digestive tract or ofmeals ingested.

Digestive tract analyses are particularly importantbecause coprolites are rare in the archaeologicalrecord, pollen is very durable, and standard researchdesigns are not always practical. Issues of diet, mortu-ary practices, seasonality, and taphonomy are not fullyaddressed here. Diet, even though it can be approachedthrough a series of interrelated research designs andmethodologies, can be directly evaluated by establish-ing digestive tract contents. The inference betweenwhat is found in a midden or as waste products (e.g.,bone and plant debris) and what was consumed isavoided. Products found in the digestive tract at thetime of death were ingested, and the cautious investi-gator can separate intentional versus unintentionalingestion. Parasite analyses from prehistoric humanpopulations can be conducted in conjunction withdigestive tract studies. The extraction procedures forparasitology and palynology are similar, and the sacral

sample would be an ideal context for the potentialrecovery of parasites (see Warnock & Reinhard, 1992).Given the results of abdominal content recovery,parasite analyses may also yield positive results.

Conclusions

The primary focus has been to develop a systematicsampling programme to recover evidence of the diges-tive tract contents of skeletonized inhumations throughpalynological, macrobotanical, and faunal analyses. Asuccess rate of 70% was achieved, which is 48% higher

than the combined total of all previous studies(Reinhard, 1986; Reinhard et al., 1992; Tuross et al.,1994). Palynological recovery of the digestive tractremains was especially successful, utilizing both stat-istical and relative frequency comparisons. Abdominal

contents can consistently be identified within the sacralsamples; only one sacral sample (where possible) failedto yield digestive tract contents. The study confirmedthe hypothesis that the most productive area to sampleis the sacral foramina and the sediment directly above.The palynological data also demonstrated the recoveryof abdominal contents from different portions of thepelvic girdle. Finally, since the study utilized popu-lations buried in diverse matrices, future studies mightalso attain high success rates.

In an atmosphere of changing attitudes toward theexcavation and analysis of human remains, less in-vasive procedures of burial analysis need to bedeveloped. The use of comprehensive analyses of burial

sediments to locate digestive tract contents is one suchmethod. As stated by Reinhard et al. (1992), this formof study is an important technique to add to skeletalanalyses. Macro and microscopic remains can provideinformation on a wide variety of topics relevant to theanthropologist, not only for the recent dead but alsopotentially to those investigating archaic humans. Thesamples can be quickly and easily collected in the fieldand, if need be, stored for long periods of timeif appropriate precautionary/curation measures aretaken. It is urged that this form of analysis be routinelyimplemented for the collection, interpretation, andcuration of biological information. Given its non-destructive nature, political groups may be moreamenable to this form of analysis over more destructivealternatives.

Acknowledgements

I owe special thanks to my committee (Dr JamesSchoenwetter, Dr Christopher Carr, and Dr DonaldMorris) for their valuable insights and assistancethroughout the research project. Additional thanks toLisa Huckell, Judy Cameron, Amy and Bruce Phillips,Penny Dufoe-Minturn, Jim Pokines, Desert Archae-ology, Archaeological Consulting Services, Inc., and

Hans Skov for a variety of analyses, access, comments,and editing. The manuscript also benefited from thecomments of three anonymous reviewers. This researchhas been funded by grants from Sigma Xi, The ArizonaArchaeological and Historical Society, and TheGraduate Research Support Program at ASU. Allerrors are the sole responsibility of the author.

References

Andersen, S. T. (1990). Pollen spectra from the Bronze Age barrowat Egsvile, Thy, Denmark. Journal of Danish Archaeology 9,153156.



16/17

Barkley, F. A. (1934). The statistical theory of pollen analysis.Ecology 15, 283289.

Berg, G. E. (1997). Stomach and intestinal contents in skeletonizedburials from central Arizona: A multidisciplinary approach. In68th Annual Meetings of the American Association of PhysicalAnthropologists . St Louis, Kansas.

Berg, G. E. (1999). Determining the abdominal contents of skel-etonized burials using a multidisciplinary approach. UnpublishedMasters Thesis. Arizona State University.

Bisset, N. (1994). Herbal Drugs and Phytopharmaceuticals. A Hand-book for Practice on a Scientific Basis. Stuttgart: MedpharmScientific Publishers.

Bonser, W. (1963). The Medical Background of Anglo-SaxonEngland. A Study in History, Psychology, and Folklore . London:The Wellcome Historical Medical Library.

Bryant, V. M. J. (1975). Pollen as an indicator of prehistoric diets inCoahuila, Mexico. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 46,87106.

Bryant, V. M. J. & Hall, S. A. (1993). Archaeological palynology inthe United States: A critique. American Antiquity 58, 277286.

Bryant, V. M. J. & Holloway, R. G. (1983). The role of palynologyin archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6,191224.

Castetter, E. F. (1935). Ethnobiological studies in the AmericanSouthwest I, uncultivated native plants used as sources of food.The University of New Mexico Bulletin (Biological Series) 4.

Castetter, E. F. & Bell, W. H. (1942). Pima and Papago IndianAgriculture. University of New Mexico Press.

Castetter, E. F. & Bell, W. H. (1951). Yuman Indian Agriculture.University of New Mexico Press.

Castetter, E. F. & Opler, M. E. (1936). The ethnobotany of theChiricahua and Mescalero Apache. Ethnobiological studies in theAmerican southwest III. The University of New Mexico Bulletin:Biological Series 4, 168.

Clark, J. & Vint, J. (1998). The Tonto Creek Archaeological Project.Archaeological investigations along Tonto Creek, Vol. 2, DraftReport. Tucson: Center for Desert Archaeology.

Cummings, L. S. (1994). Anasazi diet: Variety in Hoy House andLion House coprolite record and nutritional analysis. In (K.

Sobolik, Ed.) Paleonutriton: The Diet and Health of PrehistoricAmericans. Center for Archaeological Investigations, OccasionalPaper No. 22. Southern Illinois University: Board of Trustees,pp. 134150.

Doran, G. & Dickel, D. (1988). Multidisciplinary investigations atthe Windover Site. In (B. A. Purdy, Ed.) Wet Site Archaeology.Caldwell: Telford Press, pp. 263289.

Dufoe-Minturn, P. (In press). Mortuary remains of the Salado. In(P. Dufoe-Minturn & J. Clark, Eds) Tonto Creek ArchaeologicalProject. Archaeological Investigations along Tonto Creek. Anthro-pological Papers No. 22. Tucson: Center for Desert Archaeology.

Faegri, K., Iverson, J., Kaland, P. & Krzywinski, K. (1989). Text-book of Pollen Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Faulkner, C. (1991). Prehistoric diet and parasitic infection inTennessee: Evidence from the analysis of desiccated humanpaleofeces. American Antiquity 56, 687700.

Fish, S. K. (1989). Grand canal ruins pollen results. In (D. R.Mitchell, Ed.) Archaeological Investigations at the Grand CanalRuins: A Classic Period Site in Phoenix, Arizona: Volume 2. SoilsSystems Publications in Archaeology, No. 12. Phoenix: SoilSystems Inc., pp. 559581.

Fry, G. (1977). Analysis of Prehistoric Coprolites from Utah. SaltLake City: University of Utah Press.

Fry, G. & Hall, H. J. (1986). Human coprolites. In (D. P. Morris,Ed.) Archaeological Investigations at Antelope House. Washington,DC: National Park Service, pp. 165188.

Gish, J. W. (1982). Pollen results. In (R. E. Gasser, Ed.) TheCoronado Project Archaeological Investigations. The SpecialistsVolume: Biocultural Analyses. Coronado Series 4, MNA ResearchPaper No. 23. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona, pp.96223.

Holloway, R. G. (1983). Diet and medicinal plant usage of a LateArchaic population from Culberson County, Texas. Bulletin of theTexas Archaeology Society 54, 319329.

Holloway, R. G. (In press). Pollen analysis of the Holocenesediments.

Kapp, R. O. (1969). How to Know Pollen and Spores. Dubuque,Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Publishers.

Kealey, E. (1981). Medieval Medicus, a Social History of Anglo-Norman Medicine. Madison: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kearney, T. H. & Peebles, R. H. (1960). Arizona Flora. Berkley:University of California Press.

Kenner, D. & Requena, Y. (1996). Botanical Medicine. A EuropeanProfessional Perspective. Brookline: Paradigm Publications.

Levey, M. (1966). The Medical Formulary or Aqrabadin of Al-kindi.Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Martin, P. S. & Sharrock, F. W. (1964). Pollen analysis of prehistorichuman feces: A new approach to ethnobotany. American Antiquity30, 168180.

Minnis, P. E. (1989). Prehistoric diet in the northern Southwest:macroplant remains from Four Corners feces. American Antiquity54, 543558.

Moerman, D. E. (1986). Medicinal Plants of Native America. AnnArbor: University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology.

Moore, M. (1979). Medicinal Plants of the Mountain West. Santa Fe:Museum of New Mexico Press.

Moore, P. D., Webb, J. A. & Collinson, M. E. (1991). PollenAnalysis. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publication.

Niethammer, C. (1974). American Indian Food and Lore. New York:Macmillan.

Odgaard, B. V. (1985). A pollen analytical investigation of a BronzeAge and Pre-Roman Iron Age soil profile from Grontoft, WesternJutland. Journal of Danish Archaeology 4, 121128.

Polunin, O. (1969). Flowers of Europe. London: Oxford UniversityPress.

Rawcliffe, C. (1988). The profits of practice: The wealth and status ofmedical men in later Medieval England. The Society for the SocialHistory of Medicine 1, 6278.

Rawcliffe, C. (1995). Medicine and Society in Later MedievalEngland. England: Alan Sutton Publishing Limited.

Reinhard, K. J. (1986). Analyses of Hohokam burial soils. In (D. R.Mitchell, Ed.) Archaeological Investigations at the Grand CanalRuins: A Classic Period Site in Phoenix, Arizona, Vol. 2. SoilsSystems Publications in Archaeology No. 12. Phoenix: SoilSystems Inc., pp. 10091012.

Reinhard, K. J. (1990). Archaeoparasitology in North America.American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 145163.

Reinhard, K. J., Ambler, J. R. & Mcguffie, M. (1985). Diet andparasitism at Dust Devil Cave. American Antiquity 50, 819824.

Reinhard, K. J., Brooks, R. H., Brooks, S. & Largent, F. B. (1988).Diet and environment determined from analysis of prehistoriccoprolites from an archaeological site near Zape Chico, Durango,Mexico. In (L. Capasso, Ed.) Advances in Paleopathology. Pro-ceedings of the VII European Meeting of the PaleopathologyAssociation, Lyon. Chieti: Marino Solfanelli, pp. 151155.

Reinhard, K. J., Geib, P. R., Callahan, M. & Hevly, R. (1992).Discovery of colon contents in a skeletonized burial: Soil samplingfor dietary remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 19, 697705.

Reinhard, K. J., Hamilton, D. L. & Hevly, R. (1991). Use of pollenconcentration in paleopharmacology: Coprolite evidence ofmedicinal plants. Journal of Ethnobiology 11, 117132.

Reinhard, K. J. & Hevly, R. (1991). Dietary and parasitologicalanalysis of coprolites recovered from Mummy 5, Ventana Cave,Arizona. The Kiva 56, 319325.

Schoenwetter, J. (1996). Archaeological palynology at the old LasVegas Mormon fort state park: The pilot study. In (J. Hohmann,Ed.) The Old Las Vegas Mormon Fort: The Founding of a DesertCommunity in Clark County, Nevada. Studies in Western Archae-ology. Phoenix: Louis Berger and Associates, pp. 247257.

Schoenwetter, J. (1998). Rethinking the paleoethnobotany of EarlyWoodland caving. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 23,2343.

1364 G. E. Berg


17/17

Schoenwetter, J. & Smith, L. D. (1986). Pollen analysis of theOaxaca Archaic. In (K. V. Flannery, Ed.) Guila Naquitz: ArchaicForaging and Early Agriculture in Oaxaca, Mexico. Orlando:Academic Press, pp. 179237.

Shafer, H. J., Marek, M. & Reinhard, K. J. (1989). A Mimbres burialwith associated colon remains from the NAN Ranch Ruin, NewMexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 16, 1730.

Smith, S. J. (1995). McDowell to Shea pollen analysis. In (K.Henderson & D. R. Abbott, Eds) Archaeology at the Head ofthe Scottsdale Canal System. Anthropological Papers No. 95-1.Phoenix: Northland Research Inc., pp. 165184.

Sobolik, K. (1988). The importance of pollen concentration valuesfrom coprolites: An analysis of Southwest Texas samples. Palynol-ogy 12, 201214.

Sobolik, K. (1990). A nutritional analysis of diet as revealed in prehis-toric human coprolites. The Texas Journal of Science 42, 2336.

Sobolik, K. (1994). Paleonutrition of the Lower Pecos region of theChihuahuan Desert. In (K. D. Sobolik, Ed.) The Diet and Healthof Prehistoric Americans. Center for Archaeological Investi-gations, Occasional Paper No. 22. Southern Illinois University:Board of Trustees, pp. 247264.

Sobolik, K. & Gerick, D. J. (1992). Prehistoric medicinal plant usage:A case study from coprolites. Journal of Ethnobiology 12, 203211.

Sutton, M. Q. (1998). Cluster analysis of paleofecal data sets: A testof late prehistoric settlement and subsistence patterns in thenorthern Coachella Valley, California. American Antiquity 63,86107.

Tuross, N., Fogel, M., Newsome, L. & Doran, G. (1994). Subsist-ence in the Florida Archaic: The stable-isotope and archaeobo-tanical evidence from the Windover Site. American Antiquity 59,

288303.Vint, J. M., Huckell, B. B. & Dufoe-Minturn, P. (1994). Phase 1

archaeological data recovery report and Phase 2 data recoveryproposal for the Punkin Center section, ADOT State Route 188project, Tonto Basin, Arizona. Tucson: Center for DesertArchaeology.

Warnock, P. J. & Reinhard, K. J. (1992). Methods for extractingpollen and parasite eggs from latrine soils. Journal of Archaeologi-cal Science 19, 261264.

Williams-Dean, G. (1978). Ethnobotany and cultural ecology ofprehistoric man in Southwest Texas. Unpublished Ph.D. Disser-tation. Texas A & M.

Williams-Dean, G. (1986). Pollen analysis of human coprolites.In (D. P. Morris, Ed.) Archaeological Investigations at Ante-lope House. Washington, DC: National Park Service, pp. 189205.


Berg 2002 Recovering Abdominal Contents Skeleton

Documents

Transcript of Berg 2002 Recovering Abdominal Contents Skeleton